LEO KELVIN JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leo Kelvin Johnson appeals his convictions for trafficking and possession of cocaine and driving with a suspended license. The court vacates his possession conviction as a double jeopardy violation because it arose from the same cocaine as the trafficking conviction, but affirms his remaining convictions and sentences.
The court held that because the trafficking and possession convictions arose from the same act and involved the same cocaine, one conviction must be vacated under double jeopardy protection. The court also held that consecutive sentencing is permissible so long as the second sentence commences on a definite date, making the trial court's sentencing scheme valid.
[1] Convictions for trafficking and possession of the same contraband arising from the same incident violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
[2] A sentence may not be imposed consecutive to a sentence that has not yet been imposed.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree that the cocaine involved in both convictions was the same; namely that found during a search after a vehicular stop. One of the convictions must, therefore, be vacated.”
Establishes the court's holding that double jeopardy protection requires vacation of one conviction when both convictions arise from the same cocaine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was arrested following a vehicular stop during which cocaine was found. He was convicted of both trafficking and possession of the same cocain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The defendant, Leo Kelvin Johnson, appeals his convictions for trafficking and possession of cocaine and driving while his license was suspended. He was sentenced to five and one half years incarceration and three years probation for the trafficking count, two years community control for the possession count, and 67 days time served for driving with a suspended license. He argues two points on appeal.
First, the defendant contends that his trafficking and possession convictions arose from the same act and involved the same cocaine and thus violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. We agree that the cocaine involved in both convictions was the same; namely that found during a search after a vehicular stop. One of the convictions must, therefore, be vacated. Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987); Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Second, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing his instant Charlotte County sentence consecutive to a previous sentence imposed for a Hillsborough County offense which was committed after the date of the Charlotte County offense. He urges that he should serve his sentences in the order that he committed the crimes. This is meritless. The only limitation on a consecutive sentence is that it may not run consecutive to a sentence yet to be imposed on another offense. See Teffeteller v. State, 396 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The rationale is that a sentence must commence on a definite date. Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Since the defendant’s instant sentence will commence on a definite date, i.e., after his nine year Hills-borough County sentence, it is valid.
Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s conviction of possession and the sentence on that count. It is unnecessary to resen-tence the defendant, however, because the defendant’s adjusted total score is still within the five and one-half to seven year range. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences on the trafficking and driving with a suspended license counts.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Teffeteller v. State, 396 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)